Bombay High Court
Sunanda Suryakant Kulkarni vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 1 August, 2022
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil, Sandeep Vishnupant Marne
42 WP 1487 21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
42 WRIT PETITION NO.1487 OF 2021
Sunanda w/o Suryakant Kulkarni,
Age 59 years, Occ. Pensioner,
R/o. Plot No. 47, Jawahar Colony,
Kannad, Tq. Kannad, Dist. Aurangabad. ... Petitioner.
VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra,
Through, Secretary,
School Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2) Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad.
3) Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad. ... Respondents.
...
Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Ravindra V. Gore
AGP for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. S.B. Yawalkar
Advocate for Respondent No. 2 & 3 : Mr. U.C. Patil h/f Mr. U.B. Bondar
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &
SANDEEP V. MARNE, JJ.
DATE : 01.08.2022.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)
Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of both
the sides, the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.
2. We have heard both the sides.
3. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges orders dated
27.11.2018 and 01.01.2019 by which her pay came to be refixed and as a
42 WP 1487 21.odt
result thereof, an amount of Rs. 1,16,358/- came to be recovered.
4. Perusal of the refixation order dated 27.11.2018 shows that the
recovery is in respect of the period from 01.01.2006 to 01.07.2018.
Admittedly, the petitioner is a Class-III employee and the recovery is in
respect of the period exceeding five years. It also appears that the petitioner
has taken voluntary retirement on 30.09.2018. Thus, the case of the
petitioner is covered by principle Nos. I, II and III of the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih
(White Washer) etc; (2015 ) 4 SCC 334.
5. The only objection that the learned counsel for the respondent
Nos. 2 and 3 has about the action of recovery being set aside is delay
of about two years in filing the present petition. He contends that the
petitioner's refixation of pay was rejected on 27.11.2018 and that the
entire amount has already been recovered before filing of the present
petition. He contends that the petitioner could not have filed the
present petition after the entire amount was recovered. In our
opinion, the delay of about two years in approaching this Court cannot
be treated as fatal to the case of the petitioner particularly when the
case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision of the
Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra). In the
circumstances of the case, we are inclined to exercise our jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. We, therefore, proceed to pass following order :
(A) The action of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in
effecting the recovery of Rs. 1,16,358/- is quashed and
set aside.
42 WP 1487 21.odt
(B) The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are directed to refund
the amount of Rs. 1,16,358/- to the petitioner within a
period of eight weeks from today.
7. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of.
8. Rule is made absolute.
(SANDEEP V. MARNE J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)
mkd/-
